NEWS & VIEWS continued...
throughout the economic impact section that the potential exists for manure-to-energy tech- nologies to reduce or eliminate the costs asso- ciated with manure storage and management. Such technologies are hardly widespread, re- quire signifi cant up-front capital expendi- tures, and, in many cases, require ongoing government subsidization. Recommendation: Maryland Farm Bu-
reau’s Board of Directors recommends that the proposed regulations be withdrawn. A better and more eff ective approach would be to work through Soil Conservation District of- fi ces to provide farmers with Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plans, which are site-spe- cifi c and address conservation concerns that are most likely to improve overall bay water quality. State and federal funds should be targeted to- wards helping farmers address the needs out- lined in the site-specifi c plans.
Is MDA hastening the demise of ag- riculture (and the horse industry)?
by Pam Saul, manager of Rolling Acres Farm, Brookeville (Montgomery County) I have grave concerns over how the current
proposed Nutrient Management regulations are being mandated to the agricultural indus- try in Maryland. As both an equestrian facility operator and a Montgomery County Soil Con- servation District Supervisor, I can see both sides of how these regulations will aff ect not only my farm, but the entire equestrian indus- try in Maryland. From my farm side, I am deeply disappoint- ment in Maryland’s Department of Agriculture (MDA) and their lack of support for the fam- ily farm. During the summer, I attended sev- eral meetings where farmers were assured that “nutrient trading” would be a great benefi t to us
and would help us achieve the more costly Best Management Practices (BMP’s) on our farms. T is trading is where developers are required to off set their new construction based on the environmental impact and it was touted that
“Since our county has relatively few cattle op-
erations, the majority of this one regulation will fall on the equine operations to comply.” - Pam Saul, Rolling Acres Farm Manager (Montgomery County)
farms could benefi t as the source of the off set. Now, we are being forced through MDA’s
Nutrient Management requirements to comply and we lose all ability to have these same BMP’s available for the nutrient trading. In essence, we were told one thing and MDA did another. On top of that, MDA made no attempt to quantify the economic impact this would have on our farms and, let’s face it, our businesses. Our livelihood is from being able to make a profi t, just like any other business. Placing these regulations on our businesses puts us at a serious economic disadvantage to other farms not required to follow these standards in the watershed.
In their notice to the public, MDA stated,
“T e proposed action has minimal or no eco- nomic impact on small businesses.” Really? So I put on my Soil Conservation hat and the farm was reviewed for the cost of what it would be for fencing out streams to keep the horses out of water they don’t go into. T e estimated cost was $50,000 to address a nonproblem. And this didn’t account for additional upkeep or the fact that this fence isn’t going to keep out the deer that regularly
go into the streams. Why isn’t the state ad- dressing the serious overpopulation of deer that have a devastating economic impact, as well as environmental impact on the state? I also have concerns that agriculture, and es- pecially equine operations, are being targeted with these new nutrient management plan requirements. T e goal set for just Mont- gomery County is 1,002 acres of stream ac- cess control with fencing by the year 2025. Since our county has relatively few cattle op- erations, the majority of this one regulation will fall on the equine operations to comply. My family has been farming for generations.
We protect our lands and each generation tries to improve for the next generation. We use scientifi cally based practices and work hard to keep our farm active and profi table. Requiring farms in Maryland to comply with stringent regulations that are not based in fact and/or science and moving away from incentives to punishment are counterproductive. By putting additional economic burdens on farms, it will only hasten the demise of agriculture in Mary- land. If that’s MDA’s goal, then I guess we’re headed in the right direction.
Taking Our Land
“Why is it OK to constantly take from those that live in the country, grow the food and animals and provide for recreational sports we all enjoy?” - Cheryl London, farm owner (Woodstock, Baltimore County)
by Cheryl London, Woodstock (Baltimore County) I have been involved with horses for most of my adult life. I have a few horses at my house/ farm so the proposed plan really will not aff ect me personally but I must say it will aff ect horse farm operators, boarding farms, training centers and other related businesses immensely.
I understand the need and concern as it is related
continued on page 90
F.I.C.S. of Maryland, Inc.
• Arena Footing o LightFoot™, AirFoot™, EquiCush Felt & SandAid Rubber o Dust Free Footings - Summit-Pro & Summit-X
• Arena Harrows o Red Master Harrows, Drag-n-Fly, Parma Arena Groomers
• Dust Control o EuroSprinkler Systems, Water Wagons, & Water Reels o Summit-Retro, Wax, Polymer, & Oil Coatings
HUNDREDS of Satisfied Customers; references happily provided… 800-378-4639 www.
stableandarena.com
10 | THE EQUIERY | SEPTEMBER 2012 800-244-9580 |
www.equiery.com
851630-120812
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112